054A and the OHP: a comparison

Found a paper about Radar-to-ESM correlation written by Chinese scientists in 2000. I first saw this paper at the library of a British university.

http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/qikan/periodical.articles/hkxb-e/hkxb2000/0002/000204.htm

However, this is not about radar data fusion at measurement/plot or track level.

—–

QUADRI-THRESHOLD ALGORITHM OF CO-LOCATED RADAR-TO-ESM CORRELATION

WANG Guo-hong , HE You
(Institute of Radar 402 , Naval Aeronautical Engineering Academy, Yantai 264001, P.O. Box 109, Shandong Province, China)
MAO Shi-yi
(Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing 100083, China)
WANG Yong-an
(4330 Factory, Qixia 264001, Shandong Province, China )

Abstract:　A quadri-threshold radar-to-ESM correlation algorithm is presented and the corresponding four thresholds (high threshold, middle threshold, low threshold, and threshold margin) are given. The proposed algorithm is especially suited for the scenarios where each radar track is specified by different numbers of measurements. Using a simple and effective discriminant function based on the fuzzy synthesis function, the proposed quadri-threshold radar-to-ESM correlation algorithm first selects the two most likely radar tracks and then makes the soft decision based on the selected two tracks. The introduction of the threshold margin in the presented algorithm can further reduce mis-classification errors. Simulation results show the feasibility of the algorithm.

Key words:　radar; ESM; correlation
CLC number:　TP202　　Document code:　A
Article ID: 1000-9361(2000)02-0086-05

In recent years, radar-to-ESM correlation has been widely studied［1～9]. Use of radar and ESM sensors increases the likelihood of target acquisition and reduces the vulnerability to jamming. Radar-to-ESM correlation was first studied by Coleman［1］. Trunk and Wilson［2］ considered the problem of associating a set of n ESM angle measurements with one of m possible radar tracks, where each radar track was specified by a different number of measurements and the cumulative probability of the random variable with a chi-squared density was used as the discriminant function. In order to alleviate the computational burden, the closeness score for correct association in Ref.［3］ and fuzzy synthetic function in Refs.［4,5］ were used as discriminant function, respectively.

Based on the fuzzy synthetic function, a tripe-threshold decision algorithm of radar-to-ESM correlation was presented in Ref.［5]. In order to reduce the mis-classification when radar tracks are close in azimuth, a quadri-threshold radar-to-ESM correlation algorithm is proposed in this paper based on the work of Ref.［5]. The proposed quadri-threshold radar-to-ESM correlation decision rule is based on the two most likely radar tracks and, therefore, can further reduce mis-classification errors.

—–

Cheers,
Sunho

Sample of chinese sources which does not tell you the radar type or ship design but it does give clue to the type of research the chinese are looking at.

舰载指控系统应用框架的设计与实现
<<计算机应用 >>2006年01期
赵恒 , 陈靖 , 王振宇 , ZHAO Heng , CHEN Jing , WANG Zhen-yu

以开放的中间件模型CORBA为基础,设计和实现了一个面向舰载指控领域的应用框架用以提高软件开发效率.该框架抽象出舰载指控系统的共性,形成了面向领域的对象管理器和事件管理器两个主要部件以实施对框架中应用对象和事件的统一管理.

某火控雷达天线测控系统数据存取的设计和实现
刘永良上
海工程技术大学航空运输学院，上海200336

对某火控雷达天线测控系统的整体组成进行了介绍，对其中的数据需求进行了分析；在此基础上对系统的数据库结构进行了设计，并用关系数据库系统Microsoft SQL Server7．0对其后台数据库进行了实现；最后用VB的ActiveX数据对象(ADO)对其前台的数据存储和查询功能进行了实现。

You evidently still do not understand the difference between track level integration and plot level integration, which comes under radar output integration, and integration of radars (edited part underlined) under a combat system. There is no evidence that the 054A has any level of radar output integration, be it track or plot level.

okay, I was wrong I guess. He wasn’t giving 054A any kind of credit. Check below on my comment on the test ship.

Try reading the paper Datafuser recommended.

so basically, you can’t explain squat.

Shows quite clearly you don’t understand the difference between integration of radars into a combat system, and integration of radar outputs. I highlight datafuser’s sentence: “Many naval combat systems simply let radars do local tracking and just choose the best track they think, discarding the others.
”

And what does Kashtan have to do with the possibility of the 054A having radar output integration onboard? Must be some “Chinese-superiority” thought process that I’m not familiar with. :rolleyes:

In general, when china obtains a new weapon system or attempts to buy a new system, it always gets as much technical data on it as possible and then make an improved version based on that. As for how 054A’s radar processing system compare to Polma-E, that I can’t say for sure. But it has been stated that the latest Sovs are using pretty new Russian combat systems and that PLAN sailors actually enjoy using Sovs more than 052B/C, because they find 052B/C’s combat systems to be too advanced. I don’t expect 054A’s combat system standard to be lower and it’s pretty clear what I think about radar processing system.

Here is a suggestion, why don’t you follow PLA a little bit?

I’m not desperate enough to have to throw a red herring to divert attention. And I remind you: “The correlation of number of targets tracked to refresh rate is such that they are inversely proportional.“

Do you understand how event driven programming like this works? you get an event, then you process it. So, if you have X events and your system can accept Y updates per second. Then, the max number of updates for a target is Y/X (although less in practice assuming standard distribution of udpates). But in most systems, Y should be large enough that Y/X will never reached. If they do, you need to upgrade your system. In your case, this 1500 track updates per second in most scenario is never going to be reached.
So no, bringing it up doesn’t impress one bit.

A higher scan rate makes for a lower probability of detection. That’s the trade off of having a higher scan rate. The IADT enjoys the best of both worlds by combining the input from multiple radars, having one radar cover for the deficiencies of another.

I’ve never heard of anything like H-band to be not good enough (or too short) for reliable detection. When you have a more powerful radar, located high (I’d love to see you put all 3 radars on top of the mast) and using more modern processors and algorithm, you are going to get better results. I don’t think anyone would argue that IADT can track lo targets better than Spy-1D.

You have yet to prove that radar output is integrated on the 054A.

right, so they put all these sensors + SAM on the test ship without 054A’s combat system just for fun. Let’s see what China is thinking, “we will integrate all of this only on combat system level, so then we can move this to 054A for use. Oh wait, 054A’s combat system hasn’t been tested for integration of these sensors. we have to integrate on there again! What a waste of time to do it on 891”

Funny that you have to ask so many questions about the SM-1 (showing that there is little you know about it). You also evidently know little about the HH-16, other than info from some perhaps dubious sources which you cannot show here. Yet somehow the HH-16 must be more capable than the SM-1. Because it is made in China? :rolleyes:

well, do a search on HQ-16 and shtil and see how many results you get. Why do I need to state it when it’s everywhere? HH-16 was developed as the new age medium range SAM to succeed shtil in PLAN. They could’ve bought shtil on 054A, but they didn’t.

I ask you to show one thing (and suddenly it became many questions, you really enjoy picking the part you want to reply to and twisting things, don’t you?). What is it’s lowest altitude of engagement? If it can’t intercept 5-7 m targets, then it can’t intercept modern sea skimmers.

As for HH-16 being better than SM-1, yes, I do assume that a system based on a system capable of intercepting sea skimmers can intercept sea skimmers better a system not built for intercepting sea skimmers. I do assume that a system designed to encounter modern anti-ship missile can do it better than a system not designed for it at all.

If you haven’t noticed, my position is based on a caveat. There is no need for me to show proof of whether the 054A has a radar output integrator on board or not, since I have declared that I don’t know. The thing is, if one doesn’t know, one cannot establish a firm position as tphuang did, that the 054A is better than the OHP in low-E target detection/tracking. Since he did, it is incumbent on him to prove that radar output integration exists in the 054A. Unfortunately, he has not done so, and probably will not be able to do so.

As for my position that the OHP is better than the 054A in low-E target detection, should the 054A not have radar output integration, I have already explained it before in my earlier posts. Datafuser has also added more info. His post should be a pretty clear illustration of how radar output integration should not be confused with radar integration under a combat system.

Sorry but you have no proof and neither does anybody else in this thread so it is all realy rather pointless.

and because of it’s not possible to get any classified data, slq-32 could not have failed? who about the other way round: why is there no such notice in the report if it was a human fault? they listed a lot of human faults so why not this one? a sentence like “the ew operator was not able to read out the missile information listed on the slq-32 screen” would be free of any classified information but they didn’t mentioned something like that.

because it is not possible to get classified data upon which we can make a reliable conclusion, it is not possible to make a firm declaration that the SLQ-32 failed (as you did). It is only possible to speculate that the SLQ-32 failed.

do we have any indications that there are two types of alarms?
and furthermore how likely is it that a trained ew operator, which is highly alerted by a “high pitch sound” indicating a lock on from an emitter is not able to find any information on a screen if we assume that the data was on this screen?
of course non of us can clarify this situation but imho it is much more probable that there was no data about the exocet on this screen.

None. 😀 I will freely admit is was pure, baseless speculation on my part. Another thing is, was the Exocet radar data in the SLQ-32 library at that point in time?

sorry but the other way round is true. they thought that stir is masked, so they used the cas-tracker to lock on to the mirage. so the cas search radar was not masked!

if my calculation is right, sps-49 should have made 12-13 revolutions between missile start and impact. the minimum range is claimed to be less than 1nm (global security: 0.5nm), so this is not that important because nobody could react in these last three seconds. it would not speak for a good performance of the sps-49 if it was not able to detect the exocet within 12 revolutions.

do you have some more information on the stir “horizon search”. thales speaks about sector search but no information on scan angels or areas. however because stir was masked, it could not had helped in this situation (which shows again the weakness of the ohp design).

That will teach me to rely on my memory in future! 😀

so maybe now you agree to my first statement that numbers like range and performance in a high gloss advertising brochure may vary from real world combat situations?

Certainly I agree. Max ranges are very often not achievable.

You have not provided any for yours either so I do not know why your boasting.:mad:

If you haven’t noticed, my position is based on a caveat. There is no need for me to show proof of whether the 054A has a radar output integrator on board or not, since I have declared that I don’t know. The thing is, if one doesn’t know, one cannot establish a firm position as tphuang did, that the 054A is better than the OHP in low-E target detection/tracking. Since he did, it is incumbent on him to prove that radar output integration exists in the 054A. Unfortunately, he has not done so, and probably will not be able to do so.

As for my position that the OHP is better than the 054A in low-E target detection, should the 054A not have radar output integration, I have already explained it before in my earlier posts. Datafuser has also added more info. His post should be a pretty clear illustration of how radar output integration should not be confused with radar integration under a combat system.

Despite tphuang and Pinko’s insistence, they have yet to provide any evidence backing their claims. 😀

You have not provided any for yours either so I do not know why your boasting.:mad:

There’s no reason to doubt that China has had suffcient access to this kind of equipment. 😉

It does look a lot like JRSCCS. All we know from the JRSCCS is a diagram but there is just too many similarities between Poyma and JRSCCS, though the latter seems to extend the network even more to have concurrent processing from a whole variety of sensors, not just from two radar sets.

There is certainly no lack of Russian (or French) equipment to copy.

If Poyma is present in the PLAN, it is likely to be on the 052B ships and quite possibly the 051C. As we know, Fregat handles both volume search and TWS against multiple targets, as it works with Orekhs, which provides prioritized target tracking and target illumination. But that is how it works with Russian vessels.

On the 052B we see a hybrid. Given that the SAM system is a true Shtil, the radar on top should be an original Fregat, not the Sea Eagle copy. But the ship also has an SR-64, though the Type 730s are backed by Rice Lamp Type 344 radars. In my hypothesis, there is an integrator between the Fregat and the SR-64, and the Poyma easily fits that bill.

Assuming Sea Eagle is a Fregat copy, it may also have TWS functions. The 054A system using Sea Eagle Fregat copy and the SR-64 may mirror the system on the 052B. SR-64 also appears in other vessels too, the 052C with the four array set, and the 051C with the 30N6E Tombstone and Fregat/Sea Eagle (I don’t know if the 051C uses the Chinese copy or Russian original.) I am inclined to think that if integration exists on the 051C it would be easier to pair the Tombstone with an original Fregat using the Poyma, then add the SR-64 to it.

Literally, there’s only one saying 054A even doesn’t have a sensor fusion( which is called radar integrating in his term), and some diagram is good enough to refute that.

Well, I have no professional mil-tech experience so, small question. “sensor fusion = radar integrating” ??….at least the words don’t seem to match….:confused:

PS: To everyone :: Looking at all the logic been thrown in and out from both sides, I guess its safe to say nobody here can neither confirm nor deny that the 054A has a Zero-Point Energy Module powering an Advance Phase Shifting Device, making it absolutely invisible to anything available on earth today and for the foreseeable future. 😀 😉 :p

If this is the proof of sensor fusion, then almost all warships have sensor fusion.

There are many different types of sensor fusion – measurement/plot level fusion (SYS-2/TMS on various American, Canadian, German and Taiwanese ships and Australian CEA-MAST on Aussie FFG-7s), track level fusion (Outfit LFD Radar Track Combiner on UK Type 42 DDGs) and a combination of both (Franco-Italian Horizon).

In measurement/plot level fusion, radars send plot data to a central fusion system which forms composite tracks. This requires radars not to do local tracking.

In track level fusion, radars do local tracking and then just pass tracks to a central location for track-to-track correlation.

Many naval combat systems simply let radars do local tracking and just choose the best track they think, discarding the others.

Below is from “Multi sensor tracking function on modern anti-air-warfare (AAW) frigates”
Fiorini, M.; Filoni, G.
Target Tracking 2004: Algorithms and Applications, IEE
Volume , Issue , 23-24 March 2004 Page(s): 39 – 50

“In the frame of Horizon frigate each sensor provides target data as source track (ST). These data are composed by track data, estimated position and speed provided by the internal tracker of the sensor, and plot data, the real measures of the radar used to produce the estimates. Having both track and plot data the CMS has been designed as a mixed system, able to use tracks and/or plots according to the real need.”

Cheers,
Sunho

I’m sorry but the level of information you want simply does not exist in china. I can give you links to acadamic works on Chinese radar integration from chinese electronics institute that built these radar, but unlike in the west, these projects only are given a 6-8 digit project number with no mention of Ship, build date, or even radar designation. It is unlikely that we can pinpint sensor fusion techniques to specific ships which is why we speculate that 054A has sensor fusion.

PLA watching is an speculation game based on related information avaliable. You do not get any concrete info until much much later.

Because I suspect any resolution about whether the SLQ-32 ‘failed’ will require classified information. An important pioint here: How do you define ‘fail’? IMO, if the equipment was designed/specified to detect the missile under the specific circumstances which the incident took place, but didn’t, that would be a failure.

and because of it’s not possible to get any classified data, slq-32 could not have failed? who about the other way round: why is there no such notice in the report if it was a human fault? they listed a lot of human faults so why not this one? a sentence like “the ew operator was not able to read out the missile information listed on the slq-32 screen” would be free of any classified information but they didn’t mentioned something like that.

An apparent contradiction, that may be resolved if we consider the possibility that there are two types of alarms, specific to each situation. With the dense signal environment, the detection may then have been displayed, but missed by the operator.

do we have any indications that there are two types of alarms?
and furthermore how likely is it that a trained ew operator, which is highly alerted by a “high pitch sound” indicating a lock on from an emitter is not able to find any information on a screen if we assume that the data was on this screen?
of course non of us can clarify this situation but imho it is much more probable that there was no data about the exocet on this screen.

This just struck me – remember the CAS had to be unmasked to engage the Mirage? The order was then to use the STIR to illuminate the Mirage? With the Exocet coming down the same bearing, that would probably be the reason why the CAS could not detect the Exocet – it might have been blocked. The STIR then was also not yet upgraded with the capability for horizon search. That left the SPS-49, but with the SPS-49’s low scan rate, the missile might have progressed to its minimum range before the SPS-49 had a chance to detect the Exocet (after all, the MPU upgade wasn’t implemented yet).

sorry but the other way round is true. they thought that stir is masked, so they used the cas-tracker to lock on to the mirage. so the cas search radar was not masked!

if my calculation is right, sps-49 should have made 12-13 revolutions between missile start and impact. the minimum range is claimed to be less than 1nm (global security: 0.5nm), so this is not that important because nobody could react in these last three seconds. it would not speak for a good performance of the sps-49 if it was not able to detect the exocet within 12 revolutions.

do you have some more information on the stir “horizon search”. thales speaks about sector search but no information on scan angels or areas. however because stir was masked, it could not had helped in this situation (which shows again the weakness of the ohp design).

so maybe now you agree to my first statement that numbers like range and performance in a high gloss advertising brochure may vary from real world combat situations?

Try Babelfish on this link:
http://www.milparade.ru/docs/upload/072-074_01.pdf

Chinese access to Russian radar output integration equipment was never in doubt. The only problem is, is the Poima-E on board the 054A? I really don’t think so, though I’m not 100% certain. It is highly likely that the JRCCS combat system is the one aboard the 054A instead, but there is no mention of a radar-output integration function in that system. Despite tphuang and Pinko’s insistence, they have yet to provide any evidence backing their claims. 😀

Is there also any more detail on how the radar data is fused on the Poima-E?

There’s no reason to doubt that China has had suffcient access to this kind of equipment. 😉

it highlighted some good questions and provide some background information. i do not understand why it is so important if it is classified or not?

Because I suspect any resolution about whether the SLQ-32 ‘failed’ will require classified information. An important pioint here: How do you define ‘fail’? IMO, if the equipment was designed/specified to detect the missile under the specific circumstances which the incident took place, but didn’t, that would be a failure.

– was it a alarm on the loudspeaker or only a simple scanner function? the report says that the ew operator was listing to a cyrano radar when he heard a “constant high pitched sound” of a lock on and after 10 sec he heard the cyrano radar again. of course i’m not an expert on the slq-32 but for me this sounds like a simple scanner which routes the most powerful signal to the speaker.

– you refered to friedman that the alarm system may have been switched off but you are also asking why people failed to react to the alarm. i think these two points exclude each other. imho even if the alarm system was offline there should be a situation awareness about all emitters around the ship. turning off an alarm function should not turn off all functionality. if so it would be waste human resources by assigning a crew member to the slq-32 if it can detect nothing.
– 6 min before the lock on the ew operator used the slq-32 to correlate incoming emissions as a cyrano iv radar allocated to the incoming mirage. but 6 min later he was not able to use the same system to get information on the lock on? imho this is highly unlikely.

my conclusion to this:
– the slq-32 was operational (regardless if a so called alarm function was turned on or off). it was able to provide enough information to identify an emitter as a cyrano iv radar.
– the ew operator was able to use the system to inform the cic about both, the radar and the lock on.

=> so imho if the operator was not affected by a total blackout or changed the mode of operation from the slq-32 in 6 min, he did not get information about the source of the lock on from the slq. whereas the first two points rated as human faults would have been mentioned in the report, there is a good chance that a shortcoming on the slq-32 is either not mentioned or not part of the unclassified report.

An apparent contradiction, that may be resolved if we consider the possibility that there are two types of alarms, specific to each situation. With the dense signal environment, the detection may then have been displayed, but missed by the operator.

i fully agree to the second point but the first one is a little bit tricky. the first one can be interpretated in different ways:
– when the lock on was heard on the loud speaker they could set up the phalanx, and using the srbocs if they had maneuvered the ship before. from this point of view they may had a chance to detect and shoot down the exocet.
– but the other way round is that the stark was not able to detect and track the exocet with either the sps-49 nor the mk-92 search radar. imho both systems failed at this point. that a lock on to the mirage with stir or the cas-tracker may had increased the chance to detect the exocet is a big “if”. as mentioned before, the book claimed that the german and dutch navy had showed that the mk-92 may fail in this situation.

This just struck me – remember the CAS had to be unmasked to engage the Mirage? The order was then to use the STIR to illuminate the Mirage? With the Exocet coming down the same bearing, that would probably be the reason why the CAS could not detect the Exocet – it might have been blocked. The STIR then was also not yet upgraded with the capability for horizon search. That left the SPS-49, but with the SPS-49’s low scan rate, the missile might have progressed to its minimum range before the SPS-49 had a chance to detect the Exocet (after all, the MPU upgade wasn’t implemented yet).

well, I think yourfather admits to track level integration, but not plot level.

You evidently still do not understand the difference between track level integration and plot level integration, which comes under radar output integration, and integration of radars (edited part underlined) under a combat system. There is no evidence that the 054A has any level of radar output integration, be it track or plot level.

well yeah, there is a difference. If you are so smart, why don’t you explain how it’s done? I’ve done SE in this area before and is unconvinced about the resolution on some of these tracks they are getting per second update.

Try reading the paper Datafuser recommended.

well, you managed to speak one sentence about 054A and make two mistakes. Brilliant.
Well, it has been stated in numerous articles that Type 730 is integrated with SR-64 (kanwa most notably), but I’ve always believed that the best evidence coming for PLAN are pictures. For the case of 052C, there is absolutely zero reason for SR-64 to be there unless it integrates with the Type 730 CIWS. Now, I don’t know what kind of source you are looking for, whether it’s official PLA daily announcement or whatever. But you are not going to get those. You have to sort of use common sense.
.
.
.

I don’t know what kind of evidence do you need? Having SR-64 sitting there capable of supporting only Type 730 is not evidence that it is integrated with Type 730? What do I say to that? It’s like the Russians were able to integrate that onboard radar with kashtan (I’m sure at least that one is plot level integration), yet China can’t do the same. I mean what do I say to that?
.
.
well, with the way they’ve been testing the new set of sensors/weapons for 054 series on 891 as a integrated system. I think that’s pretty good evidence.

Shows quite clearly you don’t understand the difference between integration of radars into a combat system, and integration of radar outputs. I highlight datafuser’s sentence: “Many naval combat systems simply let radars do local tracking and just choose the best track they think, discarding the others.
“

And what does Kashtan have to do with the possibility of the 054A having radar output integration onboard? Must be some “Chinese-superiority” thought process that I’m not familiar with. :rolleyes:

are you this desperate, that you can only insult me to prove points. Do I need to go through your posts to show how ignorant you are toward PLAN?

but in this case, I’m laughing at your assertion that a system capable of taking 1500 updates a second is a lot. If a system cannot handle more track updates than the possible number of radar generated updates, it’s in real trouble and needs upgraded. So, you replied 3 paragraphs without addressing that.

I’m not desperate enough to have to throw a red herring to divert attention. And I remind you: “The correlation of number of targets tracked to refresh rate is such that they are inversely proportional.“

operating at a high frequency like SR-64 allows more radar inputs. Which gives it better ability to distinguish the bad inputs from the good ones. Sitting high on top of the mast gives it better angle against sea clutter. Using a faster machine like 054A would use compared to OHP (let’s just say today’s computers are far faster than the ones of OHP’s last update) would allow it to do more calculations per second.

A higher scan rate makes for a lower probability of detection. That’s the trade off of having a higher scan rate. The IADT enjoys the best of both worlds by combining the input from multiple radars, having one radar cover for the deficiencies of another. You have yet to prove that radar output is integrated on the 054A.

other than that every other AD system on 054A is an improvement over 052B. Other than the numerous internet sources that mentionned HH-16 as an improved shtil. Other than HH-16 replacing shtil as the medium range naval SAM of PLAN. I guess I can’t find any evidence.

As for this SM-1 being able to engage low altitude targets. If SM-2 wasn’t able to do this until baseline 7 (which didn’t happen until late 90s). A missile that USN doesn’t even use anymore is somehow be upgraded to engage 5 m targets. When was the last update SM-1 got?

Funny that you have to ask so many questions about the SM-1 (showing that there is little you know about it). You also evidently know little about the HH-16, other than info from some perhaps dubious sources which you cannot show here. Yet somehow the HH-16 must be more capable than the SM-1. Because it is made in China? :rolleyes:

At least the rest of us recognize there’s data fusion capability existing in 054A CDS. But such data fusion ( as unilaterally called Radar integrating by Yourfather) is integrated at measurement level or at track level or both is still unclear.

well, I think yourfather admits to track level integration, but not plot level.

Yet again, you demonstrate you don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you understand the relation between plots and tracks? I had assumed that pointing out that IADT integrated radar outputs on the basis of plots would have sufficed. It seems now that I had credited you with more knowledge than you possess.

well yeah, there is a difference. If you are so smart, why don’t you explain how it’s done? I’ve done SE in this area before and is unconvinced about the resolution on some of these tracks they are getting per second update.

I had meant to type Type 730 in the first sentence. But it doesn’t matter, for the second sentence still applies. There is no indication whatsoever that radar output is integrated for any of the systems. You have yet to show proof, till now, for any of your stand.

well, you managed to speak one sentence about 054A and make two mistakes. Brilliant.
Well, it has been stated in numerous articles that Type 730 is integrated with SR-64 (kanwa most notably), but I’ve always believed that the best evidence coming for PLAN are pictures. For the case of 052C, there is absolutely zero reason for SR-64 to be there unless it integrates with the Type 730 CIWS. Now, I don’t know what kind of source you are looking for, whether it’s official PLA daily announcement or whatever. But you are not going to get those. You have to sort of use common sense.

Laughing at the number itself is an indication of what you do not know. The correlation of number of targets tracked to refresh rate is such that they are inversely proportional. It may be such that the processing power is more limited in the IADT, but you do not know the number for the 054A, so how do you assume that the 054A’s combat system can track more targets?

Processing is also done nearer to the radar to reduce the number of false detections etc, reducing the number of extraneous plots. In this case then, a comparably lower refresh rate is sufficient to handle the load. Look at the advancements made to the Mk92, just as an example, in reducing the amount of clutter in the raw return. On the other hand, being able to hndle more tracks is not itself an indication of superiority of one system over another.

Again, I remind you: It is not only a matter of the number of trackable targets, which is not as critical a criteria against the low-E missile threat. Throwing up a red herring to divert the argument to an area which you think is in your favour is silly. It will fool no one.

are you this desperate, that you can only insult me to prove points. Do I need to go through your posts to show how ignorant you are toward PLAN?

but in this case, I’m laughing at your assertion that a system capable of taking 1500 updates a second is a lot. If a system cannot handle more track updates than the possible number of radar generated updates, it’s in real trouble and needs upgraded. So, you replied 3 paragraphs without addressing that.

If the 054A’s combat system does not integrate its radar outputs, then it would not be able to compare in terms of how fast a track can be established. For how many false alarms can be suppressed, the IADT will also have an advantage, simply because the ability to correlate information from multiple sources at the plot level aids greatly in false target rejection.

operating at a high frequency like SR-64 allows more radar inputs. Which gives it better ability to distinguish the bad inputs from the good ones. Sitting high on top of the mast gives it better angle against sea clutter. Using a faster machine like 054A would use compared to OHP (let’s just say today’s computers are far faster than the ones of OHP’s last update) would allow it to do more calculations per second.

If you haven’t noticed, all my arguments are made on the caveat that the 054A’s combat system does not integrate the radar outputs. it’s just that you and Pinko are so allergic to the slightest suggestion that the 054A could be inferior to the 30 year old OHP under a specific circumstance, that caused you to get into this no-win (on your part 😀 ) debate.

I don’t know what kind of evidence do you need? Having SR-64 sitting there capable of supporting only Type 730 is not evidence that it is integrated with Type 730? What do I say to that? It’s like the Russians were able to integrate that onboard radar with kashtan (I’m sure at least that one is plot level integration), yet China can’t do the same. I mean what do I say to that?

You are assuming again that the 054A integrates radar output. Evidence? 😀

well, with the way they’ve been testing the new set of sensors/weapons for 054 series on 891 as a integrated system. I think that’s pretty good evidence.

It did not ‘just’ happen. That capability was gained after substantial changes, of which I have already listed some. For that matter, how do you know that HH-16’s performance is improved over the Shtil? i’ll like to see some evidence to that.

other than that every other AD system on 054A is an improvement over 052B. Other than the numerous internet sources that mentionned HH-16 as an improved shtil. Other than HH-16 replacing shtil as the medium range naval SAM of PLAN. I guess I can’t find any evidence.

As for this SM-1 being able to engage low altitude targets. If SM-2 wasn’t able to do this until baseline 7 (which didn’t happen until late 90s). A missile that USN doesn’t even use anymore is somehow be upgraded to engage 5 m targets. When was the last update SM-1 got?

Pinko, tphuang etc…. small piece of advice. The others literally have the higher ground here. WARNING: I am gonna play devil’s advocate for a moment: :dev2:

..-.

Literally, there’s only one saying 054A even doesn’t have a sensor fusion( which is called radar integrating in his term), and some diagram is good enough to refute that.

If this is the proof of sensor fusion, then almost all warships have sensor fusion.

There are many different types of sensor fusion – measurement/plot level fusion (SYS-2/TMS on various American, Canadian, German and Taiwanese ships and Australian CEA-MAST on Aussie FFG-7s), track level fusion (Outfit LFD Radar Track Combiner on UK Type 42 DDGs) and a combination of both (Franco-Italian Horizon).

In measurement/plot level fusion, radars send plot data to a central fusion system which forms composite tracks. This requires radars not to do local tracking.

In track level fusion, radars do local tracking and then just pass tracks to a central location for track-to-track correlation.

Many naval combat systems simply let radars do local tracking and just choose the best track they think, discarding the others.

Below is from “Multi sensor tracking function on modern anti-air-warfare (AAW) frigates”
Fiorini, M.; Filoni, G.
Target Tracking 2004: Algorithms and Applications, IEE
Volume , Issue , 23-24 March 2004 Page(s): 39 – 50

“In the frame of Horizon frigate each sensor provides target data as source track (ST). These data are composed by track data, estimated position and speed provided by the internal tracker of the sensor, and plot data, the real measures of the radar used to produce the estimates. Having both track and plot data the CMS has been designed as a mixed system, able to use tracks and/or plots according to the real need.”

Cheers,
Sunho

At least the rest of us recognize there’s data fusion capability existing in 054A CDS. But such data fusion ( as unilaterally called Radar integrating by Yourfather) is integrated at measurement level or at track level or both is still unclear.

the target illuminators can then independantly illuminate the priority targets, with 3D designation capability for the trackers incorporated in phase III of the Mk92 upgrades.

So now we see it again, you still exactly require your CAS to do low angel horizon search of sea skimming AshM & high angel 3D volume search of any possible high flyer like Zenith approaching ARM, all at the same time. Your almighty CAS being required by u to perform both what the Sea eagle 3D radar plus SR64 tracking radar do together. Your CAS has a poor update rate on elevation 4-5 seconds vs Sea eagle’s 2.5Seconds. and everything is addressed in previously posts, no need to repeat here yet agian

The FCU-17 diagram only shows infromation console, fire control console and interface console, no ‘integrator console’. Neither does it show connection to any Sea Eagle radar. :rolleyes: Are you hallucinating as well? I think you are just incapable of rational debate based on facts, sorry, but you belong to the ignore list. 😀

Shown in that FCU-17 diagram, In between the Fire control system and main databus, there’s a white instructor console with computing power & memory which integrates data from different sensor in a common output to weapon system.